Time to Make Proper Distinctions: Part 3

Paul Owen has written a surrejoinder to my rejoinder regarding the views of so-called Reformed Catholicism. The present article will likely be my last response in this dialogue. Although I think the dialogue has been helpful in defining some key issues, I’m beginning to see there are foundational issues that prevent us from coming to any substantial agreement on this. Understandably, Dr. Owen admits he has not responded to every point I raised in my previous article; neither will I be responding to every point he has raised in his. Dr. Owen’s comments are offset in blocked text, and my responses follow.

I have in mind Svendsen's third option. This involves people who ARE justified by faith alone, even though they do not confess that faith in the same way that Protestants do. In other words, being justified by faith alone is not dependent upon the accuracy of my understanding of the mechanism of my justification. If I have true faith in Christ, then Christ justifies me through that faith, even if I do not acknowledge that my faith is sufficient for my justification. In other words, I am justified by faith alone, not by believing THAT I am justified by faith alone. This is the essence of the difference between us.

I agree that this has been the difference in our views so far. But I think Owen’s elaboration of his view in this latest article comes closer to my view and looks less and less like Owen’s original view.  For instance, although Owen begins his elaboration by reiterating his original position--"I believe that true faith justifies even if it does not recognize its own sufficiency for justification, so long as the object of that faith is Christ, and nothing else"--he nevertheless seems to temper this sentiment as he moves along: "Anyone who believes in someone or something OTHER than Christ for justification does not have genuine faith. . . . The Roman Catholic who trusts in his good works, plus Christ, is damned." Here, it seems, is an internal contradiction in Owen’s view. Owen maintains his stance that the Roman Catholic is to be excluded categorically from any considerations surrounding just who is guilty of the Galatian error today. Roman Catholics, in his estimation, simply do not fall into the category of those who attempt to be justified by works. Imperfect though their faith may be, they nonetheless have a true, saving faith. Owen agrees with us that Christ must be the sole object of faith for that faith to be saving faith. 

But it is here the contradiction arises. Early in his article Owen proposes, “I am justified by faith alone, not by believing THAT I am justified by faith alone.” By this, Owen means that a man may be justified who does not “acknowledge that [his] faith is sufficient for [his] justification.” Yet, in his elaboration of this he states, “Anyone who believes in someone or something OTHER than Christ for justification does not have genuine faith.” Applied to the Roman Catholic, Owen concedes, “The Roman Catholic who trusts in his good works, plus Christ, is damned.” It seems to me that in spite of our lingering differences on how all of this is to be applied to the Roman Catholic, this last statement at least represents a clear step toward our view of this issue. Yet it simultaneously represents an internal contradiction in Owen’s view.  One cannot maintain both (1) that one is justified who comes to Christ believing that his faith is insufficient on its own and so attempts to add sacraments and/or other works to supplement that faith (this is the essence of Owen’s statement “that true faith justifies even if it does not recognize its own sufficiency for justification, so long as the object of that faith is Christ, and nothing else”), since “we are justified by faith alone and not by believing we are justified by faith alone,” and (2) that one cannot be justified who attempts to add works to his faith because he believes his faith is insufficient on its own (this is the essence of Owen’s further statements, “Anyone who believes in someone or something OTHER than Christ for justification does not have genuine faith,” and “The Roman Catholic who trusts in his good works, plus Christ, is damned”).

These are mutually exclusive statements, and it is unclear how Owen attempts to reconcile them—or indeed can reconcile them. The person in Owen’s first category (who does not think his faith is sufficient to justify) must automatically trust in his own good deeds to supplement that faith, and ipso facto falls into Owen’s second category. What person, upon recognizing the insufficiency of his own faith for justification before God, would fail to supplement that faith with whatever he thinks would fill that gap (whether good deeds, sacraments, or something else); so that at the end of the day, it could no longer be said of him that he holds Christ as his sole object of faith?

In spite my extended critique of this point, I do not disagree that a person may be justified by faith alone who is simply in a state of confusion on this point, or who is simply too timid to view his own faith as sufficient for justification. I have all along made allowances for the layman in the pew (who is unaware of the differences), and have applied this standard only to those who are active proponents of a false gospel. It seems to me that this is the real difference between our respective views. Owen allows that even those who know the true gospel of justification by faith alone and consciously reject it may still be justified. I allow that those who are confused on it, or have not otherwise made the distinction between the two systems (so that no rejection of the true gospel has taken place) may be justified by their faith alone; but that one who is an active defender of a contrary gospel and an antagonist toward the true gospel may not be justified. I deny that the elect can be deceived to that extent (the Galatians not withstanding) on an issue of such importance. Owen allows that they can.

2. Svendsen claims that Romans 3:20 and Galatians 1:9 prove that belief in sola fide is necessary. What about Romans 3:20? Do Roman Catholics believe we are justified by the works of the Law? No they do not. Do they believe they are justified by works of any kind, considered in themselves, apart from the merits of Christ? No they do not.

This statement dies the death of a thousand qualifications. To say that Roman Catholics don’t believe they are justified by works, “considered in themselves, apart from the merits of Christ,” is a catch-all statement that would preclude anyone who names the name of Christ from falling into the category of justification by meritorious works, so long as he always acknowledges the merits of Christ as a basis for being able to perform those meritorious works. Such a qualification, although a formal necessity for those who would add works to justification (one cannot be a blatant Judaizer, after all), is entirely meaningless. Paul would have rejected such a system categorically.

As for Galatians 1:9, where does Paul define his "gospel" as the belief in justification by faith alone? He does not. He defines the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Sola fide is not mentioned; and for good reason. The good news is not: "Believe that this is what you must believe, and you will be saved." It is: "Believe this, and you will be saved."

While I have entertained these kinds of misrepresentations in past correspondence, it should be noted that this is really nothing more than a caricature of my view. I do not hold that one is saved by believing one is saved by faith alone. As I have already pointed out (repeatedly), the Roman Catholic layman in the pew can be justified by his faith alone so long as he does not consciously reject that doctrine once he learns of it. Moreover, while the gospel is outlined in 1 Cor 15:3ff, that passage is not all there is to say about it. Paul goes into quite a bit of detail about his “gospel” in the first few chapters of Romans—none of which he includes here because it is not Paul’s burden here to address that. I’m surprised that Dr. Owen would be satisfied with an interpretation of 1 Cor 15:3ff that does not take into account Paul’s corrective against false teachings about the resurrection. The “gospel” includes an entire host of teachings, but is usually situationally defined in the New Testament. Sometimes it refers to the apostolic deposit, sometimes to the narratives about Jesus, sometimes to the sayings of Jesus, sometimes to the future messianic kingdom, sometimes to the message about the cross, sometimes to the means of justification before God, sometimes to the coming judgment, and sometimes to the idea of salvation coming to the Gentiles. For purposes of this discussion, we have been using it in the sense of how a man is justified before God (as it is used in Romans and Galatians). In 1 Cor 15, Paul is using it to refer to what must be believed about the resurrection. Not to make a distinction between these usages does nothing to further this discussion.

In other words, the content of the gospel is what God has done for us; it is not how we have that salvation applied to us. Evangelical Protestants have an awful habit of confusing the content of the gospel of salvation with the means by which that salvation is communicated to us. The content of the gospel cannot be open for debate; but the means by which the salvation the gospel offers to us is appropriated by us can be discussed without worrying about going to hell if I get it wrong.

The only ones who are in danger of hell fire in my view are those who have openly denounced the true gospel and are openly propagating a false one.

Let me illustrate. Lutherans and some Presbyterians believe in baptismal regeneration (though usually with different nuances). Baptists and other Presbyterians do not. Does that mean that Lutherans and those Presbyterians who believe that regeneration is communicated through baptism are not regenerated? Many hard-nosed Evangelicals would say that such people (including Martin Luther himself) are regenerated, even though they (supposedly) misunderstand HOW that regeneration is effected. Why should the same principle not apply to justification?

Because justification and regeneration are two separate things; and because baptismal regeneration is not the same thing as baptismal justification. That is far different from the Roman Catholic who views performing the sacraments as the instrument by which one increases justification before God.

3. Svendsen rejects my argument regarding Trinitarian baptism. My argument was that baptism is necessary for salvation (ordinarily), and that baptism is to be given in the name of the Trinity (a doctrine which was assumed by the apostles and their followers); therefore, the acceptance of Trinitarian baptism assumes the acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity. A person is not going to submit to a baptism which assumes a doctrine they do not believe in! Therefore, by teaching the necessity of Trinitarian baptism for salvation, the NT also teaches the necessity of accepting the doctrine of the Trinity which that baptism presupposes.

Owen still has not convincingly differentiated this from Mormon baptism, who could also in good conscience be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And he has still not successfully explained why we should just assume the binding nature of Nicene Trinitarianism in New Testament baptism while completely ignoring the binding nature of Reformed Soteriology in the New Testament justification. His persistence in this point amounts to nothing more than special pleading.

Svendsen points out that this logically means that we must believe in baptism by immersion to be saved, since to "baptize" means to "immerse." But this is an oversimplification. When used in ritual contexts, baptizo simply means to "wash." The mode of washing is not determined by the choice of this word. You might perform the "washing" by immersion, but that does not mean that to wash IS to immerse. Didache 7.3 provides a perfect illustration of this, since it allows converts to be baptized by pouring water on the head three times.

Two things should be noted here: (1) the “washing” is normally assumed to be a “plunging” in which the dish is immersed in water; and (2) in Did 7:3 (Owen’s passage above), the normal mode assumed by the passage is immersion, with “pouring” being provided as an exception “allowed in cases of necessity” (BAGD). “Immersion” is still the base meaning of the word.

The equation of baptizo with immersion was long ago dismantled in James W. Dale's multi-volume work on the meaning of the word (reprinted by P&R).

The relative “dismantling” of an argument is often in the eye of the beholder.

Faith being the "alone" INSTRUMENT of justification does not have the same vital role in the NT doctrine of justification as the belief in Christ as our source of righteousness has, or as the Trinity has in the NT doctrine of baptism. Why do I know that? Because the Galatians WERE denying that faith alone was sufficient for justification, yet they were still viewed by Paul as justified Christians (1:6 cf. 4:8-9; 5:1). Paul did not deny that the Galatians were still justified, for he still calls them brothers (1:11; 6:1) though they were denying that their faith in Christ was still sufficient (3:2; 4:21).

As I have been insisting all along, the New Testament makes a distinction between those who propagate a false teaching and those who may temporarily succumb to it. The New Testament writers customarily condemn the former and admonish the latter, no matter what the heresy is. John does the same thing in regard to incipient Gnosticism in 1 John; Jude does likewise (also probably in regard to an early form of Gnosticism) in his short letter. In regard to the propagators, he says: “For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” But in regard to those who had fallen prey to these teachings, he says, “And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire;” (v. 22). And while Paul still extended brotherly status to those who may have been misled by the Galatian heresy, he did not hold this view of the propagators of that false gospel (1:8-9). This confirms the distinction I have been making all along between Roman Catholic laymen and Roman Catholic apologists.

Apparently, a more serious doctrinal defection (one professed by the Judaizers) was necessary for Paul to label the Galatians as apostates.

No; the Galatians whom Paul admonishes as brothers had begun to buy into the Judaizers’ gospel. The distinction between them that Paul makes is not one of doctrinal defection; it is one of propagator vs confused recipient.

5. Svendsen mentions several other texts, including Romans 11:6; 10:3-4; and (again) 4:1-5. But again, as with Galatians, Svendsen has to read modern questions into the pertinent texts. I noted before that in his polemics against their views, Paul never accuses the Judaizers of teaching that righteousness was found by faith in Christ, plus keeping the Law. The reason would be obvious were it not clouded by Reformational questions: The Judaizers did not believe in TWO sources of righteousness. They did not believe that Christ was our righteousness, and the Law was also our righteousness.

I am not reading modern issues into the text; but it is completely unavoidable to ignore modern issues; and it is completely legitimate to look for modern applications from the ancient text. I do not think my application is at all inconsistent with Paul’s understanding of this issue. Owen as much as admits that Paul would have agreed with the Protestant version of sola fide. If that is case, then it is not unreasonable to assume he would have opposed anything contrary to that teaching, including the Roman Catholic "gospel."

The argument between Paul and the Judaizers was between the Law and Christ for righteousness; not between Christ for righteousness and Christ plus the Law for righteousness.

I have already shown this to be false, and have sufficiently demonstrated that Owen is outside the mainstream view on this.

The same tendency to read modern polemics into NT texts plagues Svendsen's discussion of these various passages in Romans. Romans 11:6 denies that election is based upon works. It is not denying that election is based upon faith plus works, since Jews never thought in those terms! So how can this passage speak to Protestant/Roman Catholic debates?

Again, it is completely legitimate and reasonable to make points about modern issues based on Paul’s theology of related issues. We do it all the time—in fact, we have to do it for every issue in theological dispute. Everything from the Arian controversy to Modalism, to the natures of Christ, to the exact relationship of the persons in the Godhead, to Open Theism--each one of these is or was a "modern" issue in relation to the NT--and we've always had to make application from the text about things that were not issues in the first century. To dismiss the relevance of making application from the NT's teaching on this issue is either short-sighted or another case of special pelading.

Non-Christian Jews certainly agreed that you had to believe in the one true God, but they did not speak of justification being given to people on the basis of their "faith." The way to be righteous was to keep the covenant, just as Moses had said (Deut. 6:25). Belief in God was assumed of course, but "belief in God" is not was Paul means when he speaks of being justified by faith in Christ.

“Belief in God was assumed” is quite an admission. For if faith is assumed in these cases, then it is equally assumed that without it all the works in the world amount to nothing for the Jew. Hence, the logical and reasonable conclusion is that Jews believed in a faith-plus-works justification. No Jew would or could ever say that one can be justified by God apart from faith.

6. Svendsen seemingly misses my point about definitions of faith in the statements of the Council of Trent. If Trent defines "faith" differently than Protestants normally do, then of what significance is it when they deny justification by faith alone? If I defined "faith" the way they did, I would deny sola fide also.

Owen has not demonstrated that Trent defines faith differently than Protestants. In fact, Trent explicitly denies that faith is confidence in the mercy of God. As a Roman Catholic monk and academician, Luther was certainly in a better position to know just how the Roman Catholicism of his own day defined "faith," and he gives no indication that there was just a misunderstanding or difference of definitions involved in this issue. Owen is simply superimposing "modern concerns" on the historical controversy.

7. Svendsen seems to think it obvious that the Judaizers are the same Pharisaic party referred to in Acts 15. But if you actually look at the landscape of scholarly opinions as to the identity of the Judaizers, you will encounter a lot of options: . . . 7) Pharisaic Jewish Christians (along the lines Svendsen suggests), which is the traditional view.

Yes, there are diverging opinions; but there are diverging opinions on almost every issue conceivable. I think my reasons for adopting the traditional view are founded on solid evidence, which I presented in my last article. There is a reason that the traditional view is still the majority view among scholars--and consequently, the preferred view.

I want to thank Dr. Svendsen for his thoughts and interaction on these important issues, but I remain unconvinced that he has made his case. The doctrine of sola fide is certainly important as a guard against boasting in one's own efforts; and it provides pastoral comfort to troubled consciences. I do not believe however that it is necessary to affirm this doctrine to be accepted as a true brother or sister in Christ.

I also want to thank Dr. Owen for treating this issue with the seriousness it deserves. Dr. Owen has departed from the historic Protestant position on this issue, and that is no small consideration in determining the correctness of his view. The traditional view still has the strongest support from New Testament scholarship—and for good reason; it is founded upon very good evidence. All other views are highly speculative and rely in large part on modern “discoveries” that, oddly enough, no one in the history of the church has ever seen before. It is one thing to discover further proofs for an established view. It is quite another thing entirely when the view itself is the new discovery.

Eric Svendsen, Ph.D.
Director, NTRMin.org